- From: Anne van Kesteren <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:09:11 -0700
- To: whatwg/dom <dom@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 11 March 2024 18:09:15 UTC
@annevk commented on this pull request. > @@ -2752,6 +2812,16 @@ before a <var>child</var>, with an optional <i>suppress observers flag</i>, run <var>parent</var> with <var>nodes</var>, « », <var>previousSibling</var>, and <var>child</var>. <li><p>Run the <a>children changed steps</a> for <var>parent</var>. + + <li> + <p>For each <var>node</var> in <var>nodes</var>, in <a>tree order</a>: + + <ol> + <li><p>For each <a>shadow-including inclusive descendant</a> <var>inclusiveDescendant</var> of + <var>node</var>, in <a>shadow-including tree order</a>, run the <a>post-insertion steps</a> with + <var>inclusiveDescendant</var>. + </ol> + </li> Is this the correct order relative to mutation observers? This should be observable using `takeRecords()`. I also still worry about this not being entirely consistent with the removal case. I suppose it's somewhat reasonable though. @smaug---- what do you make of all this? @rniwa have you had a chance to think about this? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/whatwg/dom/pull/1261#pullrequestreview-1928685624 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <whatwg/dom/pull/1261/review/1928685624@github.com>
Received on Monday, 11 March 2024 18:09:15 UTC